Compassionate conservatism never really had much of a life, but its collapse has had a debilitating effect on the Bush presidency.

Compassionate conservatism started out, remember, as a way to salvage the Republican Party from the wreckage of the Gingrich revolution. Newt Gingrich vowed to slash government, an approach that struck voters as entirely too negative. So Bush rejected "the destructive mind-set that if government would only get out of our way, all our problems would be solved."

Instead, compassionate conservatism was designed as a positive governing philosophy. It would revive responsible citizenship with more community and national service, more parental involvement in schools. Self-governing citizens would have greater incentives to give to charity.

Moreover, compassionate conservatism would get Republicans engaged in normally Democratic issues. The idea was to build trust across party lines and change the tone in Washington.

Compassionate conservatism's decline began with the Florida election mess. Suddenly there was so much animosity, it became hard to build a bipartisan movement about anything. Administration officials, slow to trust in the best of circumstances, were hesitant to invite Democrats to the White House, fearing they might say something nasty about Bush to the press on the way out.

Then came Sept. 11 and the need to fight a war on terror. Suddenly nobody in the White House, or anywhere, could think about anything else. When conservatives gather even today, conversation inevitably centers on foreign affairs. Compassionate conservatism turned out to be a thin tissue, obliterated in the heat generated by global conflict.

The result is that Bush foreign policy is bold, idealistic and controversial, but Bush domestic policy is smaller and uninspiring, even to the administration's natural allies.

Without an overarching vision, Bush's domestic policy seems less than the sum of its parts. No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug benefit don't seem to please anybody. Meanwhile, spending rises and the deficits loom, feeding a sense of domestic policy shapelessness.

At some moments it's been hard to be sure there is even a domestic policy process. On the foreign policy side, you have Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz and other heavyweights wrestling over policy. No comparable domestic debate is visible.

The eclipse of compassionate conservatism also means that Republicans have had little occasion to work with Democrats on subjects like poverty, about which there really was a developing consensus. Remember when Philadelphia's mayor, John Street, sat next to Laura Bush during the 2001 State of the Union address? That's inconceivable now.

We enter this election season as closely divided as we were in 2000, but it didn't have to be that way. The compassionate conservative agenda, if it had been fleshed out, would have provided a chance to build a center-right governing majority. Moreover, the working relationships forged on domestic policy would have come in handy in the war on terror. Liberal hawks like Senators Biden, Bayh, Lieberman and Clinton could have been brought in to help plan nation-building and to sell the war, especially in Europe  the way Republicans like Henry Stimson and Frank Knox were brought in by F.D.R. to fight World War II.

Over the past week, the Bush and Kerry campaigns have tangled over foreign policy, and Bush has risen in the polls. But eventually attention will turn to domestic affairs, and the White House will have to present a comprehensive domestic policy vision for the next four years, a set of big proposals for the second term. Apparently these plans are in the works. Let's hope they're as bold and idealistic as the president's dream of democratizing the Middle East. At the moment, it's weird having an administration that is soaring abroad but is earthbound at home.

You know who Brooks "sleeps" with, but you never know what side of the bed he will wake up on.

Brooks might have reminded readers the "wreckage of the Gingrich revolution" and its Contract With America gave the Clinton administration virtually every success it now claims.

It is worth noting that compassionate conservatism took the form, inter alia, of what the press and fellow Democrats loved to bash as Bush's "charm offensive" before the greater offense perpetrated by Daschle and Gephardt sank their poll numbers, if not their careers.

With regard to domestic policy, Bush has been repeatedly underrated, often pulling off astounding victories when it mattered.

If some now take potshots at certain education or prescription drug programs, it was to be expected in the campaign season. There is nothing Bush could have done that would have pleased Democrats following a strategy of omni-criticism 24/7. Moreover, they can hardly complain about a program that passed with an estimate that was half of the $895 billion Senator Kerry has proposed.

Brooks floated the idea of re-voting the prescription drug benefits, as if that would satisfy Democrats intent on winning an election, and not on resolving the Medicare dilemma. Please recall that when Dole went to Clinton during the 1996 campaign and secured agreement to take Social Security and Medicare off the table so that viable compromises could be reached, the very next thing Clinton did was to call a press conference to announce Republicans planned to gut these entitlement programs.

Brooks thinks Bush could have enlisted the foreign expertise of Biden, Lieberman or Clinton. Has Books been living in a cave? There is nothing on the public record to suggest that these partisan Democrats would have put their country ahead of party politics and demonstrated a loyalty to achieving administration goals more reliably than, say, Paul O'Neill. And one wouldn't have to wait for the Kiss & Tell book to learn how they sought to undercut all Bush successes.

The Big Question, Is Brooks naive, idealistic or just plain delusional, or is he trying not to burn down his new master's house?

Well he said it "didn't have to be this way" but failed to say why. He also completly re-defined what Bush meant by "Compassionate Conservatism" an unfortunate term but it had a clear meaning for Bush.

Exactly...even Peter Jennings realized the impact of the 1994 mid-terms, that he couldn't help but to describe it as America throwing a "temper tantrum"...as they threw Democrats out. If what Gingrich was saying was so negative, why did the Dems lose in a landslide? Is it any wonder these people have lost so much in the last decade; they can't even read the American people.

7
posted on 03/20/2004 8:38:53 PM PST
by cwb
(Kerry: The only person who could make Bill Clinton look like a moderate)

Ok Brooks let have little chat or reality here.I am kind of busy taken care of my kids and helping my wife but I will spent this time to show you how pathetic you are.Let us have serious conversation.

You said Compassionate conservatism never really had much of a life, but its collapse has had a debilitating effect on the Bush presidency.

What is compassionate conservatism for you?Do you even know what conservatism stands for?I know in The New York Times that word doesnt exist.By the way I hope you drink a lot of coffee today to write this nonsense . Lets move on

Compassionate conservatism started out, remember, as a way to salvage the Republican Party from the wreckage of the Gingrich revolution. Newt Gingrich vowed to slash government, an approach that struck voters as entirely too negative. So Bush rejected "the destructive mind-set that if government would only get out of our way, all our problems would be solved."

What is interesting about what you type above is you total luck of understanding and knowing facts.Let me give you some advice.Before you sit by your computer and write nonsense get some Prozac and Viagra.For you liberally mind oriented hate towards true values of American people, you are surely mute to know that it was GWB who used Compassionate conservatism first.Since you are so well educated in you liberal books, do me a favor read before you speak!

Instead, compassionate conservatism was designed as a positive governing philosophy. It would revive responsible citizenship with more community and national service, more parental involvement in schools. Self-governing citizens would have greater incentives to give to charity.

If you would like to talk about philosophy Brooks lets have one.We can dance around all night.But what is night may I ask you?What is philosophy?Can you tell me what kind of philosophy you are following?I have study philosophy for many years.I would love to sit down have serious talk with you about philosophy.I worried though your philosophy is based on assumption of things and no reality of what is going on.Philosophy Brooks is not based on writing but on reality of questioning things that some times seem to be out of our reach.Brooks Philosophy also created theology just for a note.

Moreover, compassionate conservatism would get Republicans engaged in normally Democratic issues. The idea was to build trust across party lines and change the tone in Washington.

Either you are on drugs or you had some serious child hood problems.Your statement expose you for who you are.Exposing to normally democratic issues is total nonsense coming from you.Liberals dont know what normal democratic issues are  not to mention words you are using here are double standard.It seems you are focusing on one issue only  to attack other side thinking that your side is right.Total nonsense and ball shit.

Compassionate conservatism's decline began with the Florida election mess. Suddenly there was so much animosity, it became hard to build a bipartisan movement about anything. Administration officials, slow to trust in the best of circumstances, were hesitant to invite Democrats to the White House, fearing they might say something nasty about Bush to the press on the way out.

Once again you open your mouth and let truth come out.Florida election mess --- Brooks give up this old story and only liberals care about it.You are exposing our stupidity and nonsense to intelligent people who know more about life then you do.These people are simple Americans who love their country.Unlike you who just lives in a past.

Then came Sept. 11 and the need to fight a war on terror. Suddenly nobody in the White House, or anywhere, could think about anything else. When conservatives gather even today, conversation inevitably centers on foreign affairs. Compassionate conservatism turned out to be a thin tissue, obliterated in the heat generated by global conflict.

Yes I know it hurts your sorry ass that Clinton wasnt there.I know it hurts your sorry ass that you have guts blame this on this President.Well if you are so smart why dont you take your sorry ass and learn the truth about Clinton total nonsense policy towards terrorist.Read Brooks.Reading is good I think you need that.

The result is that Bush foreign policy is bold, idealistic and controversial, but Bush domestic policy is smaller and uninspiring, even to the administration's natural allies.

Yes it takes guts to get to glory Brooks.It takes young fine women and man to kick serious ass of those who attack this country.For you liberal mind I got news for you; if you think Polish people will sit idle and let murders that kill innocent people to get away, well Brooks here it is; we will kick their sorry ass so hard they will wish they were not born.I dont know Brooks where you live but you better wake up man.

Without an overarching vision, Bush's domestic policy seems less than the sum of its parts. No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug benefit don't seem to please anybody. Meanwhile, spending rises and the deficits loom, feeding a sense of domestic policy shapelessness.

I dont know about you man.Seems you have not being watching President speaking today.Before you open your mouth, why dont check what Kerry record is.When you do that make sure you take some pills before you write another stupid stuff like this.

At some moments it's been hard to be sure there is even a domestic policy process. On the foreign policy side, you have Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz and other heavyweights wrestling over policy. No comparable domestic debate is visible.

Once again, you are showing your ignorance and stupidity.Dancing around between words dont work on me.I lived in communist country Brooks we know how to read between the lines.Face the fact you boy is going to loose.

The eclipse of compassionate conservatism also means that Republicans have had little occasion to work with Democrats on subjects like poverty, about which there really was a developing consensus. Remember when Philadelphia's mayor, John Street, sat next to Laura Bush during the 2001 State of the Union address? That's inconceivable now.

The only eclipse you will see is your boy ass being kick on 2 of November.

We enter this election season as closely divided as we were in 2000, but it didn't have to be that way. The compassionate conservative agenda, if it had been fleshed out, would have provided a chance to build a center-right governing majority. Moreover, the working relationships forged on domestic policy would have come in handy in the war on terror. Liberal hawks like Senators Biden, Bayh, Lieberman and Clinton could have been brought in to help plan nation-building and to sell the war, especially in Europe  the way Republicans like Henry Stimson and Frank Knox were brought in by F.D.R. to fight World War II.

When you say we who you mean?Bunch of lefties who have no regard of American values.Or bunch of idiots in left media like you who spread wrong news about Poland.Do you want me to go Brooks?Think about it.You are majority and dont callcenter-right governing nonsense.Maybe you should look back or rather look at your self and call yourself left-wing propaganda ball shit.I know it hurts so much to not use pc words.Well life is tough man. Read what you just wrote and dude you are pathetic.History you learn is like being in a middle of toilet when you were trying to learn how to sit on it.Dont teach me history man for I know where you come from.

Over the past week, the Bush and Kerry campaigns have tangled over foreign policy, and Bush has risen in the polls. But eventually attention will turn to domestic affairs, and the White House will have to present a comprehensive domestic policy vision for the next four years, a set of big proposals for the second term. Apparently these plans are in the works. Let's hope they're as bold and idealistic as the president's dream of democratizing the Middle East. At the moment, it's weird having an administration that is soaring abroad but is earthbound at home

. I will just say to you there is more on Kerry then he can handle.He picked this fight being totally stupid.Many say arrogance is bliss I will say it is their doom.So Brooks do me a sweet favor.Next time you write something think about it what you write.There are more American people who know what is going on.As for me.Well I am simple polish person who lived through communism and can read bs coming from left.

Brooks seems to be blaming Republicans for the loss in civility. He conveniently forgets how Bush worked with Ted Kennedy on the No Child Left Behind Act, and Kennedy stabbed him in the back with his obnoxious speech about how the Iraq war was created in Texas. He also forgets that Bush hasn't attacked anybody on the other side personally, while they've all called him every name in the book.

I find it amazing that the Demos/Crapo-communist like Brooks and the NYTs don't realize how the more they rant & lie the less anyone but the hard-core anti-Americans listen. With enemies this stupid President GWB's re-election would seem to assured. The Newt G. revolution is evidential for this.

This is just horsenuance. Bush passed a bipartisan education bill that Ted Kennedy signed off on, passed a prescription drug bill that Dems have wanted for a decade, passed a tax cut popular with the country club right, and passed faith based initiatives and a partial birth abortion ban both popular with the church going right. Every one of them fits the compassionate conservative platform, for better or worse. The left dislikes some and on others has had its thunder stolen. But the only thing they are truly livid over is the war (well, and not being in office).

Referring to Senators Biden and Clinton, in any respect, as "hawks"? Presuming that "compassionate conservatism" is actually a governing philosophy that would build a "Center-Right" coalition? Willfully ignoring President Bush's MASSIVE increase in wasteful spending on domestic programs in education, health care, etc., all in the name of his "compassionate conservative" agenda? (Whether one agrees or disagrees with the substance)

My question is: WHAT THE HECK HAS DAVID BROOKS BEEN SMOKING? It appears that working in the belly of the Anti-American beast also known as the New York Times has definitely gotten to him.

I find it amazing that the Demos/Crapo-communist like Brooks and the NYTs don't realize how the more they rant & lie the less anyone but the hard-core anti-Americans listen. With enemies this stupid President GWB's re-election would seem to assured. The Newt G. revolution is evidential for this.

Brooks was hired to be one of the Times' token conservatives. Sometimes, he does well, other times, he panders to his employers' politics. Obviously this column is one of the pandering ones.

Memo to Karl Rove - appeasement doesn't work with terrorism - and it doesn't work with liberals and socialism. If you give the liberals some of what they want, they, instead of appreciating the compromise, will bitch and moan that they didn't get everything, and will proceed to stab you in the back and distort your positions. So why bother trying?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.